Bibliographic record
Abstract
Time-diary data provide a complete sequential record of all activities of individuals, including travel, for a period of 24 or 48 h or longer. Hence, time-use data have much to offer travel behavior analysts and modelers. The pool of time-use data is rapidly increasing. Additionally, comparability between time-use data and travel data is growing, largely because of the expanding volume of activity data collected in travel surveys. One challenge is to ensure that the data and time-use, travel, and other researchers can be brought together in the most efficient manner. This task requires the development of both study-level and variable-level metadata standards. Much work, providing a basis for the development of time-use metadata standards, has already been undertaken in collateral fields. Arguments are made for exploration, application, and expansion of existing work, to establish time-use metadata standards. A consolidation of efforts is proposed between time-use and travel behavior data professionals to ensure that each field has the optimum opportunity to identify, locate, evaluate, and access useful data in either field.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.039 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".